ArticleCancer medicine2026
Real-World Efficacy of Metronomic Chemotherapy in Advanced Breast Cancer Across Molecular Subtypes.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveMetronomic chemotherapy (mCHT) is widely used in the treatment of breast cancer due to its low toxicity and convenience. However, there remain real-world studies with satisfactory samples focusing on mCHT in advanced breast cancer.
methodsEnrolled patients were assigned into capecitabine-based (X-based) group and other mCHT group. Data on baseline characteristics, treatment regimens, and outcomes were extracted from medical records. Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed.
resultsTotally, 597 patients were included with median follow-up time of 35.9 months. The median PFS for X-base group was significantly higher than that in other mCHT group (8.9 vs. 5.9 months, p = 0.004). As salvage therapy, the X-based group showed significantly higher PFS and OS than the other mCHT group in patients with HR + HER2- breast cancer (p < 0.001 and p = 0.011), especially in those combined with endocrine therapy (ET). Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that additional ET could reduce the disease progression and death risks (HR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.44-0.81; HR = 0.66, 95% CI: 0.47-0.93). In HER2+ and TNBC populations, the median PFS was higher when used as maintenance therapy compared to salvage therapy (16.0 vs. 7.0 months, p < 0.001; 11.0 vs. 5.0 months, p = 0.030).
conclusionAs salvage therapy, mCHT demonstrated significant efficacy advantages in the X-based group compared to the other mCHT group in patients with HR + HER2- breast cancer, especially in those combined with ET. For HER2+ and TNBC patients, mCHT is recommended as maintenance therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.